DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are currently amended and remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments on the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring et al. U.S. PG Pub. No. 20130037969 A1, February 13, 2013 (hereinafter “Ring”) in view of Bertoldi et al. U.S. Pub. No. 7975988 B2, December 11, 2014 (hereinafter “Bertoldi”).
Regarding claim 1, Ring discloses a carbonation machine comprising: a carbonation head (figure 1A, carbonation head assembly 130, paragraph 0032) with a bottle holder (figure 1A, pronged clamp 250; paragraph 0032) with flexible prongs (255) which may be attachable to a bottle with water to be carbonated and inject carbon dioxide into the bottle through a carbonator injector (230) (fig. 1A, paragraphs 0032-0033); and a safety dual valve for releasing excess pressure when the bottle is held by the carbonation head (figs. 2A-2B, double action safety valve 270, paragraphs 0042-0046). Ring further discloses a first spring operated valve member including spring (430) and poppet (410) (fig. 2A; paragraph 0043-0044) and a second spring operated valve member including spring (440) and poppet (410) (fig. 2A; paragraph 0045). Ring discloses that spring (440) is configured such that when pressure inside bottle (170) exceeds a predetermined limit, such as approximately 11 bars, poppet (410) moves to open aperture (425) and vent excess pressure (paragraph 0045).
However, Ring fails to disclose that both the first and second operated pistons are configured to release excess pressure at respective first and second pressure threshold levels, wherein the first pressure level is lower than the second threshold level.
Bertoldi discloses a dual stage pressure relief valve comprising a first stage valve (10) and a second stage valve (20) connected in series with an enclosed cavity between them (paragraphs 0016-0017, 0032, 0035; figs. 2-5). Bertoldi discloses that each stage includes a spring-biased pressure-responsive movable valve member (poppets, 11 and 21) actuated by its own spring (elements 14 and 24) and independently adjustable cracking pressure via threaded adjustment nuts (elements 13 and 23), thereby providing independently selected first and second pressure threshold levels. Bertoldi further discloses that the first and second cracking pressures may be selected such that the first cracking pressure is lower than the second cracking pressure (figs. 2-4; paragraphs 0011, 0037-0038, 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ring’s carbonation head pressure relief valve by incorporating Bertoldi’s dual-stage pressure relief arrangement to provide staged over-pressure protection, improve operational safety, and reduce likelihood of catastrophic pressure release, thereby improving reliability of pressure relief systems while performing the same known function of relieving excess pressure.
Regarding claim 2, Ring fails to disclose that the first spring operated piston and the second spring operated piston of the safety dual valve assembly are coaxially movable. However, Bertoldi discloses that the first-stage valve and the second-stage valve each include a spring-based movable valve member (poppets 11 and 12) disposed along the respective longitudinal axes of the valve assemblies (figs. 2-4; paragraphs 0036-0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the coaxially aligned movable valve member of Bertoldi in the modified carbonation head of Ring because coaxial alignment provides a compact, axially stacked pressure relief assembly, maintain proper alignment of movable valve members, and results in predictable operation of the dual-stage pressure relief valve.
Regarding claim 3, Ring discloses a spring provided to force the first spring (figure 2A, spring 430) operated piston and the second spring (figure 2A, spring 440) operated piston away from each other to hold the pistons in closed positions (figure 2A, pin 275, paragraph 0045). Bertoldi discloses first and second springs biasing respective first and second pressure-responsive movable valve members toward their closed positions (fig. 4, paragraphs 0032-0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the spring arrangement so that the spring forces maintain the respective movable valve members in their normally closed positions.
Regarding claim 8, Ring discloses a pronged clamp 250 configured to hold a bottle. The pronged clamp 250 may be rotated and thus, constricting rib 668 (figure 7A and 7B) is shown in both a vertical and a rotated state (paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 11, Ring discloses a bottle holder in the form of a prolonged clamp 250 (figure 1A, paragraph 0032) configured to engage and lock bottle 170 by its bottle ring 171 (figure 1E, paragraph 0040-0041). The bottle ring extends circumferentially around the bottle spout and is captured beneath the prongs when the pronged clamp is constricted by the constricting ring 268 (paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 14, Ring discloses a carbonation head 130 for a carbonation machine with a bottle holder (figure 1A, prolonged clamp 250, paragraph 0032) configured to hold a bottle with water to be carbonated and inject carbon dioxide into the bottle; and a safety dual valve assembly (figure 2B, double action safety valve 270, paragraph 0046) comprising a first spring (figure 2A, spring 430) operated piston and a second spring (figure 2A, spring 440) operated piston (figure 2A, pin 275), for releasing excess pressure when the bottle is held by the carbonation head 130, wherein the first spring operated piston is configured to release excess pressure at a first pressure threshold level and wherein the second spring operated piston is configured to release excess pressure at a second pressure threshold level, wherein the first pressure threshold level is lower than the second pressure threshold level (paragraph 0004 and 0045). Rind discloses a bottle holder (prolonged clamp 250 with flexible prongs 255) configured to receive and retain a bottle while carbon dioxide is injected into the bottle (paragraphs 0041-0046).
Bertoldi discloses a dual stage pressure relief valve comprising a first stage valve (10) and a second stage valve (20) connected in series with an enclosed cavity between them (paragraphs 0016-0017, 0032, 0035; figs. 2-5). Bertoldi discloses that each stage includes a spring-biased pressure-responsive movable valve member (poppets, 11 and 21) actuated by its own spring (elements 14 and 24) and independently adjustable cracking pressure via threaded adjustment nuts (elements 13 and 23), thereby providing independently selected first and second pressure threshold levels. Bertoldi further discloses that the first and second cracking pressures may be selected such that the first cracking pressure is lower than the second cracking pressure (figs. 2-4; paragraphs 0011, 0037-0038, 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ring’s carbonation head pressure relief valve by incorporating Bertoldi’s dual-stage pressure relief arrangement to provide staged over-pressure protection, improve operational safety, and reduce likelihood of catastrophic pressure release, thereby improving reliability of pressure relief systems while performing the same known function of relieving excess pressure.
Regarding claim 15, Ring fails to disclose that the first spring operated piston and the second spring operated piston of the safety dual valve assembly are coaxially movable. However, Bertoldi discloses that the first-stage valve and the second-stage valve each include a spring-based movable valve member (poppets 11 and 12) disposed along the respective longitudinal axes of the valve assemblies (figs. 2-4; paragraphs 0036-0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the coaxially aligned movable valve member of Bertoldi in the modified carbonation head of Ring because coaxial alignment provides a compact, axially stacked pressure relief assembly, maintain proper alignment of movable valve members, and results in predictable operation of the dual-stage pressure relief valve.
Regarding claim 16, Ring discloses a carbonation head (figure 1A, carbonation head assembly 130, paragraph 0032), a spring provided to force the first spring (figure 2A, spring 430) operated piston and the second spring (figure 2A, spring 440) operated piston away from each other to hold the pistons in closed positions (figure 2A, pin 275, paragraph 0045).
Claims 4-5, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring and Bertoldi, as applied to claim 3, in further view of Herz U.S. Pub. No. 7210497 B2, May 01, 2007 (hereinafter “Herz”).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Ring fails to disclose that an effective sealing area of the first spring operated piston is different than an effective sealing area of the second spring operated piston. However, Herz discloses a pressure relief valve in which the valve element engages two concentric sealing members defining different sealing areas, such that the effective diameter 96 of the first-stage seal 92 (figure 6) defines a first area over which fluid pressure is effective for lifting the poppet 100 from the first-stage seal 92. The effective diameter 98 (figure 5) of the second-stage seal 94(figure 6) defines a second area over which fluid escaping through the first-stage internal valve opening is effective for lifting the poppet 100 (figure 5) from the second-stage seal 94. The second area of the second-stage seal 94 is preferably larger than the first area of the first-stage seal 92 by a ratio of approximately 2 to 1 to provide for rapidly lifting the poppet 100 to release pressure accumulated within the housing 52 (col. 7, lines 22-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dual-stage pressure relief valve of Ring as modified by Bertoldi with different effective areas as taught by Herz in order to obtain controlled staged pressure relief behavior, thereby meeting limitations of claim 4, in order to establish different pressure-responsive characteristics for the respective valve stages and achieve predictable sequential opening at different pressure.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Ring fails to disclose the effective sealing area of the first spring operated piston and the effective sealing area of the second spring operated piston are defined by gaskets of different dimensions. However, Herz discloses that the effective sealing areas are defined by two seals 92 and 94 (figure 6) are formed of nitrile or fluorocarbon elastomers i.e. gaskets (col.6, lines 50-51), thereby defining effective sealing areas over which pressure acts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide sealing members of different dimensions in the modified pressure relief valve of Ring as modified by Bertoldi with gaskets of different dimensions, as taught by Herz, in order to define different effective area and therefore achieve staged pressure relieve operation.
Regarding claim 20, Ring discloses the carbonation head 130 including a pronged clamp 250 configured to hold a bottle. The pronged clamp 250 may be rotated and thus, constricting rib 668 (figure 7A and 7B) is shown in both a vertical and a rotated state (paragraph 0069).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring and Bertoldi, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Cohen et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20150040991 A1, February 12, 2015 (hereinafter “Cohen”).
Regarding claim 6, Ring fails to disclose a burst disk protected valve configured to burst and release excess pressure at a third pressure threshold level that is higher than the second pressure threshold level. However, Cohen discloses burst disk (figure 2 - burst disk 80, figure 3A – burst disk 240, paragraph 0034 and 0039) configured to rupture whenever the pressure in valve 100 exceeds a set pressure point (paragraph 0035 and 0044). Thus, a release valve incorporating a burst disc which may be ruptured at a high pressure, may provide a backup solution for a safety valve when dealing with rising pressure during an uncontrollable carbonation process when, for whatever reason, the process continues past safe limits and when the regular release mechanism fails (figs. 5A-5D; paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a safety valve assembly of Ring as modified by Bertoldi with a burst disk protected valve as taught by Cohen in order to provide redundant over-pressure protection and to improve the reliability and safety of the pressure relief system by providing a final emergency pressure relief device.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring and Bertoldi, as applied to claim 1 and 17, in further view of Hoare et al. U.S. PG Pub. 20140097549 A1, April 10, 2014 (hereinafter “Hoare”).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Ring fails to disclose the carbonation machine further comprising an actuator for actuating the first spring operated piston and the second spring operated piston so that each of the pistons is forced to break a seal. However, Hoare discloses a carbonation device in which a motor or solenoid 204 (figure 13, paragraph 0070) actuates a dump or vent valve 203 (figure 13) having reciprocating piston 210. Hoare further discloses that the piston is mechanically driven by an actuator rod 212 to open and close a valve port, thereby forcing the piston to move away from the sealing arrangement and vent accumulated pressure (paragraph 0070-0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the safety dual valve assembly of Ring in view of Bertoldi with the actuator mechanism of Hoare in order to mechanically override spring bias and force pistons to break seals for controlled pressure release.
Claim 9, 10, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring and Bertoldi, as applied to claim 8 and 20, in further view of Powell U.S. PG Pub. 20060207049 A1, September 21, 2006 (hereinafter “Powell”).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Ring failed to disclose the rotatable carbonation head includes a convex back surface matching a concave surface of a stationary part of the carbonation machine. However, Powell discloses a rotatable joint in which a convex outer surface 82 (figure 9, paragraph 0035 and 0045) of a movable member is received within and mates with a concave recess 88 (figure 9) of a stationary member, thereby permitting rotational movement while maintaining alignment between parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the rotatable carbonation head of Ring in view of Bertoldi with a convex back surface matching a concave surface of a stationary part as taught by Powell in order to provide a stable and self-aligning rotational interface.
Regarding claims 10, 22 and 23, Ring as modified by Bertoldi discloses a carbonation head 130 including a carbonation cam 325 (figure 4B, paragraph 0051-0052) positioned on interlocking gears 320 of the carbonation gear assembly. The cam is configured to move into engagement with a contact pin 275 (figure 4A) of a double action safety valve when the gears are rotated (paragraph 0052). The cam 325 present an initially retracted cam surface that progressively advances toward the contact pin 275 as the gears rotate, thereby providing a gradually advancing cam surface (paragraph 0053). The contact pin 275 forms a protruding portion of a spring-based piston assembly of the safety valve (paragraph 0043-0046). Engagement of the cam with the contact pin forces the piston to move against spring 430. Ring further teaches that the rotation of the carbonation head and the cam forces the contact pin to move the valve poppet against the spring bias to open the valve 270 and vent pressure (paragraph 0046), thereby breaking the valve seal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the same cam-piston interaction to force seal breaking during rotation for pressure release, since the same structural relationship and function are disclosed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring and Bertoldi, as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Fahldieck U.S. PG Pub. 20120241407 A1, September 27, 2012 (hereinafter “Fahldieck”).
Regarding claim 12, Ring in view of Bertoldi fails to disclose the bottle holder comprises two substantially opposite arms, and wherein each arm includes a semi-annular indentation so that together the arms form the annular indentation. However, Fahldieck discloses two substantially opposite arms (figure 1, two clamp arms – 2 and 3, paragraph 0026) which can be pivoted on a mounting element 4. The clamp arms 2 and 3 shown in allows a container 19 with its bottle neck 13 to be introduced into the clamping region of the clamp arms (figure 1, paragraph 0029). Each arm includes an inwardly facing receiving surface configured to contact the outer surface of a bottle neck 13. The inwardly facing receiving surfaces of the two opposing arms together define a circumferential receiving region for the bottle neck. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that forming each receiving surface as a semi-annular indentation to improve conformity with the circular bottle neck geometry, such that the semi-annular indentation together forms an annular indentation for receiving the bottle neck ring.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring, Bertoldi, and Powell, as applied to claim 9, in further view of Hoare et al. U.S. PG Pub. 20140097549 A1, April 10, 2014 (hereinafter “Hoare”).
Regarding claim 13, Ring fails to disclose that a valve actuator is provided, linked to the first spring operated piston configured to be guided through a guiding track, so that when the rotatable carbonation head is rotated to the dismounting position the first spring operated piston is forced to break a seal and release excess pressure. However, Hoare discloses a venting valve 130 having a reciprocating valve piston of valve element 210 that moves between a sealed position closing a vent port and an open position venting excess pressure. He reciprocating motion of the valve piston 210 is transmitted to a first actuator rod 212 which is connected by a hinge to a second actuator rod 214, such that the actuator together form a valve actuator linked to the spring-operated piston (paragraph 0070). Hoare further discloses that the piston includes a guide skirt 244 (figure 14) adapted to cooperate with surrounding head structure to guide the piston during reciprocating motion (paragraph 0076). The movement of the actuator and piston causes the valve to move from sealed position to an open position to vent pressure thereby breaking the valve seal (paragraph 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbonation machine of Ring, Bertoldi, and Powell, to incorporate Hoare’s guided valve actuator because guided actuator mechanisms are known to provide controlled, repeatable mechanical actuation of pressure relief valves during movement of a closure member. Also, the guided motion provided by the guide skirt using a guiding track, slot, or equivalent channel structure in the carbonation head, since such guiding structure are well-known mechanical equivalents for constraining linear actuator motion and ensuring proper valve alignment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 25 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Ring have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in view of Applicant’s amendment amendments and arguments, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made over Ring in view of Bertoldi.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776 /Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights